pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.11838 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

NE2025: An Updated Electron Density Model for the Galactic Interstellar Medium

S.K. Ocker , J.M. Cordes
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 03:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords galacticscatteringdistancemodelne2001radiodensityelectron
0
0 comments X

The pith

NE2025 refits the thick disk, thin disk, and spiral arms of the NE2001 model and adds refined clumps, delivering 20 times better median pulsar distance accuracy and 100 percent better scattering predictions than NE2001.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Free electrons in the space between stars spread out and scatter radio signals, making it harder to tell how far away a pulsar or fast radio burst is. The old NE2001 model used a mix of smooth disks, spiral arms, and dense clumps to estimate this effect but often underestimated distances. The new NE2025 version takes fresh, accurate distance measurements from 171 pulsars whose positions are known from parallax or star clusters, plus scattering data from 568 sources, and adjusts the sizes and densities of the main disks and three spiral arms. It also identifies and adds new dense clumps where signals are unusually delayed and revises the very center of the galaxy so that predicted scattering times drop by a factor of a thousand.

Core claim

The updated model, NE2025, provides a factor of 20× improvement in median distance prediction accuracy and 100% median improvement in scattering predictions based on DM, relative to NE2001. There is a 15× improvement in median distance prediction accuracy relative to YMW16.

Load-bearing premise

That the 171 parallax and globular-cluster distances plus the 568 scattering measurements are representative enough to refit the global disk and arm parameters without residual bias from unmodeled small-scale structures or selection effects in the sample.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11838 by J.M. Cordes, S.K. Ocker.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Electron density in the Galactic plane (Z = 0) for NE2001 (left) and NE2025 (right). The color stretch is the same for both panels. all components spiral arms thin disk Galactic Center Gum/Vela clumps & voids thick disk Gum/Vela clumps & voids [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The primary datasets used to fit NE2025. Numbers of DM, scattering, and distance measurements are indicated, as well as the model components constrained by each dataset. See Section 3 for details. along some LOSs are likely related to supernova driven bub￾bles and chimneys. Essentially all model elements have been revisited, with major changes to the thick disk and Galactic Center, and smaller changes to t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison between the sky distributions of distance measurements used to calibrate NE2001 and NE2025. Left: Pulsar parallaxes (red), globular cluster associations (blue), and other distance measures (yellow; e.g., H I kinematic distances and supernova remnant (SNR) associations) used to calibrate NE2001 are shown on top of an all-sky Hα intensity map (grey) from Finkbeiner (2003). Right: All parallaxes an… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of distance measurements used in this work. Globular clusters (light blue) provide the largest distances in the sample, whereas parallaxes (dark blue) predominantly yield dis￾tances < 3 kpc. the mean DM of all pulsars within a cluster. In total, our sample consists of 171 distances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between predicted and observed distances (top row) and DMs (bottom row) for NE2001 (left; purple points) and NE2025 (right; orange points). Black diagonal lines indicate where the predictions match the measurements. hole Cygnus (Perseus arm) HII regions HII regions (Car-Sgr arm) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Dispersion measure vs. Galactic longitude for all Galactic pulsars at latitudes |b| < 5 ◦ . The maximum DM predicted by NE2001 is shown by the black curve, and is evaluated at a resolution of 1 ◦ in longitude for b = 0◦ . Specific regions of interest for the updated model, including H II regions and a hole at l ≈ −20◦ , are highlighted in orange. Right: A Gaussian kernel-density estimator (KDE) of th… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between predicted and observed scattering delays (τ ) for NE2001 (left) and NE2025 (right). The top row shows the result of running the models with the observed distance as input, and the bottom row shows the result of running the models with the observed DM as input. Diagonal black lines indicate where predictions match measurements. Only a subset of pulsars with scattering measurements also ha… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dispersion measure perpendicular to the Galactic plane (DM⊥ = DM sin|b|) vs. |z| = D sin|b|, the distance perpendicular to the Galactic plane for high-latitude pulsars (|b| > 20◦ ) with measured distances in blue and model-based distances in red. The left hand panel shows NE2001 predictions, while the right hand panel shows predictions based on the refitted thick disk. We have excluded pulsars identified a… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Pulse broadening predicted from DM, before and after changing the spiral arms and thin disk of NE2001. The top panel shows normalized histograms of the logarithmic difference between predicted and observed scattering delays τ , in dark blue for NE2001 and in orange for a model with the spiral arm and thin disk param￾eters revised based solely on minimizing N>mod (prior to refitting the fluctuation paramet… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between observed and predicted scattering of 17 pulsars viewed through the Gum and Vela clumps. The extents of the Gum I, Gum II, and Vela clumps are indicated by the light yellow and orange circles, overlaid on an Hα intensity map (grey scale; Finkbeiner 2003). Red points indicate pulsars with scattering delays τ that are underestimated by the model based on DM, while blue points indicate puls… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of neutron stars (red) and OH masers (orange) with measured scattering, within a ≈ 1 ◦ × 0.5 ◦ region around the Galactic Center (GC), projected onto the MeerKAT radio image from Heywood et al. (2022). The sizes of the red and orange circles indicate the relative amounts of observed angular broadening at 1 GHz (size ∝ θd). The circles do not reflect the anisotropy that is observed in most of … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Schematic illustrating the geometries of the Galactic Center (GC) region used in NE2001 and the updated model (not to scale). For the GC component (pink), the scale height and radius indicate the 1/e extent of the electron density, while the clump added to the model (blue) has the cutoff radius indicated in the diagram. A region of suppressed scattering (white) is introduced in the updated model to accoun… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Schematic view of the Cygnus region as modeled in NE2025. (a) A cutout from the SPHEREx all-sky mosaic at 3.4 µm and 4 µm; figure credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech (https://spherex.caltech.edu; Crill et al. 2020; Bock et al. 2025). The three clumps included in the model, Cygnus I, II, and S117, are shown by the black circles. Pulsars with DMobs > DMmod(∞) (prior to clump fitting) are shown in black. Pulsars with s… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Statistical assessment of the gap in minimum DMs detected by the Parkes Multi-Beam Survey, corresponding to the “hole” identified in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Logarithmic differences between observed and predicted distances (left), DMs (middle), and scattering times (right). Orange histograms show the differences for NE2025, unfilled histograms for NE2001, and light blue histograms for YMW16. As in earlier sections, the distances are predicted only for LOSs < 4 kpc above the Galactic plane, whereas DMs are predicted for the entire distance sample. 100 0 100 Gal… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Maximum DM integrated to 30 kpc vs. Galactic longitude predicted by NE2001, NE2025, and YMW16, at b = 0◦ (blue), b = 1◦ (orange), and b = 2◦ (green). Pulsars at |b| < 2 ◦ are shown in light grey. smaller scale height of the thin disk in YMW16 means that this difference in maximum DM is confined to |b| < 1 ◦ . Given degeneracies between the thin disk and spiral arm parameters, it is possible that part of t… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Ratio of the maximum DM integrated through the entire Galaxy in NE2025 to the maximum DM in NE2001 (left) and YMW16 (middle), for 106 uniformly distributed sightlines shown as an all-sky map in Galactic coordinates. White grid marks show intervals of 30◦ in longitude and latitude. The far-right panel shows a histogram of the maximum DM ratio, which has a mean and rms of 0.93 and 0.11, respectively, for (N… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Free electrons in the Galactic interstellar medium (ISM) disperse and scatter coherent radio waves, by amounts that depend on the distance to the radio source. Models of the Galactic electron density are thus widely used to predict distances and scattering of compact radio sources (including pulsars, fast radio bursts (FRBs), and long-period transients), in addition to mitigating ISM foregrounds in Galactic and extragalactic studies. We use a sample of 171 precise pulsar distances, based entirely on parallaxes and globular cluster associations, as well as scattering measurements of 568 pulsars, active galactic nuclei, and masers, to update the NE2001 Galactic electron density model. We refit the thick and thin disks and three of the spiral arms. The new parameters for these large-scale components significantly repartition free electrons between the thick disk and spiral arms, thereby correcting NE2001's systematic underestimation of pulsar distance and scattering. Sightlines with excessive dispersion and scattering are used to identify new clumps that are added to the model, in addition to refining clumps that were already included (e.g., Cygnus, Vela, and Gum). The Galactic Center component is revised, yielding scattering time predictions that are $10^3$ times smaller than the Galactic Center in NE2001. The updated model, NE2025, provides a factor of $20\times$ improvement in median distance prediction accuracy and $100\%$ median improvement in scattering predictions based on DM, relative to NE2001. There is a $15\times$ improvement in median distance prediction accuracy relative to YMW16. NE2025 is available on Github and the Python Package Interface.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript updates the NE2001 Galactic electron density model to NE2025 by refitting the thick and thin disks, three spiral-arm parameters, adding new dense clumps for deviant sightlines, and revising the Galactic Center component. It uses 171 precise distances (parallaxes and globular-cluster associations) and 568 scattering measurements to derive the new parameters and claims a 20× improvement in median distance prediction accuracy and 100% median improvement in scattering predictions relative to NE2001, plus a 15× distance accuracy gain versus YMW16. The updated model is released on GitHub with a Python interface.

Significance. If the reported gains are shown to generalize, NE2025 would be a useful incremental improvement to a standard tool for converting dispersion measures to distances and predicting scattering for pulsars, FRBs, and other compact radio sources. The incorporation of high-precision parallax distances strengthens the constraints on the large-scale disk and arm components and addresses NE2001's known underestimation of distances. The revision of the Galactic Center scattering term is a clear technical advance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The 20× median distance improvement and 100% scattering improvement are computed by comparing NE2025 predictions directly against the identical 171 distances and 568 scattering values used to optimize the thick-disk, thin-disk, spiral-arm, and new-clump parameters. Because new clumps are explicitly added for sightlines that deviate in this dataset, the quoted factors measure in-sample residual reduction rather than independent predictive accuracy. A cross-validation split or held-out test set must be shown to support the generalization claim.
  2. [Model Fitting] Model Fitting section: The refit increases model complexity through data-driven addition of new clumps without reporting parameter covariances, uncertainties, or a formal selection metric (e.g., AIC or out-of-sample score). This makes it difficult to judge whether the reported repartitioning of electrons between the thick disk and arms is robust or overfit to the particular sample of 171+568 sightlines.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase '100% median improvement in scattering predictions based on DM' is ambiguous; state explicitly whether this is a factor-of-two reduction in median error or another quantitative definition.
  2. [Data Availability] Data Availability: Provide the exact GitHub commit hash or tagged release version for the NE2025 code and parameter files to ensure long-term reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

NE2025 'prediction' gains (20x distance, 100% scattering) are in-sample fit quality on the 171+568 data used to refit parameters and add clumps

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "We use a sample of 171 precise pulsar distances, based entirely on parallaxes and globular cluster associations, as well as scattering measurements of 568 pulsars, active galactic nuclei, and masers, to update the NE2001 Galactic electron density model. ... The updated model, NE2025, provides a factor of 20× improvement in median distance prediction accuracy and 100% median improvement in scattering predictions based on DM, relative to NE2001. There is a 15× improvement in median distance prediction accuracy relative to YMW16."

    Parameters for large-scale components and new clumps are optimized on the 171 distances plus 568 scattering values; the quoted 'prediction accuracy' and 'improvement' factors are then computed by feeding those same data back through the refitted model and comparing outputs to the inputs, so the reported gains equal in-sample residual reduction rather than out-of-sample prediction.

full rationale

The paper explicitly uses the 171 parallax/GC distances and 568 scattering measurements both to refit thick/thin disks, spiral arms, and to identify/add new clumps for deviant sightlines, then reports the median accuracy improvements by comparing the resulting model's DM-to-distance and scattering outputs directly against those same input data. This reduces the central performance claims to measures of training-set reproduction rather than independent generalization. No external test set or cross-validation is described in the provided text, and the evaluation is not separated from the fitting process.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model rests on a fixed functional form inherited from NE2001 (smooth disks plus arms plus discrete clumps) whose parameters are adjusted to new data; new clumps are added post-hoc to match outliers.

free parameters (4)
  • thick-disk scale height and density
    Refitted to the 171 precise distances
  • thin-disk parameters
    Refitted to the same distance sample
  • three spiral-arm parameters
    Refitted to the distance and scattering data
  • clump densities and sizes
    New and refined clumps fitted to sightlines with excess DM and scattering
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Galactic free-electron density can be decomposed into a thick disk, thin disk, spiral arms, and discrete clumps whose functional forms are known a priori.
    Carried over from NE2001 without re-derivation
invented entities (1)
  • new dense clumps no independent evidence
    purpose: Account for sightlines showing excess dispersion and scattering not captured by the smooth components
    Identified from data residuals; no independent confirmation outside the fitting sample is described

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5606 in / 1473 out tokens · 147016 ms · 2026-05-16T03:21:25.906201+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The RRATalog: a Galactic census of rotating radio transients

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    RRATs number up to 400000 in the Galaxy with a birth rate of at most 1.4 per century, comparable in size to pulsars at high luminosities and consistent with supernova rates.

  2. Great Walls of Cosmic Baryons in the Northern Sky

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    FRB dispersion measures reveal a large-scale excess of ionized gas in the northern sky spatially aligned with the Ursa Major supercluster.

  3. FAST Polarization Catalog of FRB 20240114A

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A polarization catalog of 6,131 bursts from FRB 20240114A reveals linearly decreasing rotation measure, stable dispersion measure, high linear polarization fractions, low circular polarization, and a broad distributio...

  4. The one and the only: the pulsar - white dwarf system in NGC 6749

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 accept novelty 5.0

    A 20-year timing solution for PSR J1905+0154A confirms a helium white dwarf companion of 0.17-0.19 solar masses with 0.4-0.7 Gyr cooling age, but the system's 4.5-sigma velocity excess suggests it may not be bound to ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 143 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2047

    Abbate, F., Noutsos, A., Desvignes, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2047

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2047 2023

  2. [2]

    F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al

    Agazie, G., Alam, M. F., Anumarlapudi, A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acda9a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acda9a 2023

  3. [3]

    F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P

    Alam, M. F., Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc6a0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abc6a0 2021

  4. [4]

    D., Armentrout, W

    Anderson, L. D., Armentrout, W. P., Johnstone, B. M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 221, 26, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/2/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/221/2/26 2015

  5. [5]

    D., Bania, T

    Anderson, L. D., Bania, T. M., Balser, D. S., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/1 2014

  6. [6]

    F., & Cordes, J

    Arzoumanian, Z., Chernoff, D. F., & Cordes, J. M. 2002, ApJ, 568, 289, doi: 10.1086/338805

    work page doi:10.1086/338805 2002

  7. [7]

    J., Shannon, R

    Askew, J., Reardon, D. J., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10489, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.10489 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.10489 2025

  8. [8]

    S., & Palous, J

    Avedisova, V . S., & Palous, J. 1989, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 40, 42

    work page 1989

  9. [9]

    Reynolds, J. E. 1990, Nature, 343, 240, doi: 10.1038/343240a0

    work page doi:10.1038/343240a0 1990

  10. [10]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9d0b

    Bally, J., Crowe, S., Fedriani, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9d0b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9d0b 2025

  11. [11]

    L., Barnes, A., et al

    Battersby, C., Walker, D. L., Barnes, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb5f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb5f0 2025

  12. [12]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    Baumgardt, H., & Vasiliev, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1474 2021

  13. [13]

    Benaglia, P., & Cappa, C. E. 1999, A&A, 346, 979

    work page 1999

  14. [14]

    M., & M¨uller, P

    Berkhuijsen, E. M., & M¨uller, P. 2008, A&A, 490, 179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809675

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809675 2008

  15. [15]

    Bhat, N. D. R., & Gupta, Y . 2002, ApJ, 567, 342, doi: 10.1086/338488

    work page doi:10.1086/338488 2002

  16. [16]

    J., Aboobaker, A

    Bock, J. J., Aboobaker, A. M., Adamo, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.02985, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.02985

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02985 2025

  17. [17]

    C., Deller, A., Demorest, P., et al

    Bower, G. C., Deller, A., Demorest, P., et al. 2014, ApJL, 780, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/1/L2

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/1/l2 2014

  18. [18]

    F., Benson, J

    Brisken, W. F., Benson, J. M., Goss, W. M., & Thorsett, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 571, 906, doi: 10.1086/340098

    work page doi:10.1086/340098 2002

  19. [19]

    F., Thorsett, S

    Brisken, W. F., Thorsett, S. E., Golden, A., & Goss, W. M. 2003, ApJL, 593, L89, doi: 10.1086/378184

    work page doi:10.1086/378184 2003

  20. [20]

    N., Sembach, K

    Cha, A. N., Sembach, K. R., & Danks, A. C. 1999, ApJL, 515, L25, doi: 10.1086/311968

    work page doi:10.1086/311968 1999

  21. [21]

    M., Lazio, T

    Chatterjee, S., Cordes, J. M., Lazio, T. J. W., et al. 2001, ApJ, 550, 287, doi: 10.1086/319735

    work page doi:10.1086/319735 2001

  22. [22]

    M., Vlemmings, W

    Chatterjee, S., Cordes, J. M., Vlemmings, W. H. T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 604, 339, doi: 10.1086/381748

    work page doi:10.1086/381748 2004

  23. [23]

    Chatterjee, S., Vlemmings, W. H. T., Brisken, W. F., et al. 2005, ApJL, 630, L61, doi: 10.1086/491701

    work page doi:10.1086/491701 2005

  24. [24]

    F., Vlemmings, W

    Chatterjee, S., Brisken, W. F., Vlemmings, W. H. T., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 250, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/250

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/1/250 2009

  25. [25]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade688

    Chen, X., Wang, S., & Chen, X. 2025, ApJ, 988, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade688

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade688 2025

  26. [26]

    M., Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B

    Cook, A. M., Bhardwaj, M., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbbd0 2023

  27. [27]

    M., & Chernoff, D

    Cordes, J. M., & Chernoff, D. F. 1998, ApJ, 505, 315, doi: 10.1086/306138

    work page doi:10.1086/306138 1998

  28. [28]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156 —. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301598

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0301598 2002

  29. [29]

    M., Ocker, S

    Cordes, J. M., Ocker, S. K., & Chatterjee, S. 2022, ApJ, 931, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6873

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6873 2022

  30. [30]

    M., & Rickett, B

    Cordes, J. M., & Rickett, B. J. 1998, ApJ, 507, 846, doi: 10.1086/306358

    work page doi:10.1086/306358 1998

  31. [31]

    1991, Nature, 354, 121, doi: 10.1038/354121a0

    Ryan, M. 1991, Nature, 354, 121, doi: 10.1038/354121a0

    work page doi:10.1038/354121a0 1991

  32. [32]

    Radio Wave Propagation and the Provenance of Fast Radio Bursts

    Wasserman, I. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.05890. https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05890

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    P., Werner, M., Akeson, R., et al

    Crill, B. P., Werner, M., Akeson, R., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    11443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020:

    Series, V ol. 11443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020:

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. Lystrup & M. D. Perrin, 114430I, doi: 10.1117/12.2567224 32

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2567224

  36. [36]

    Das, J., Roy, J., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 988, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade052 —. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.11058, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.11058

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade052

  37. [37]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3299

    Das, S., Mathur, S., Gupta, A., Nicastro, F., & Krongold, Y . 2021, MNRAS, 500, 655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3299

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3299 2021

  38. [38]

    T., Tingay, S

    Deller, A. T., Tingay, S. J., Bailes, M., & Reynolds, J. E. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1243, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1243

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/1243 2009

  39. [39]

    T., Archibald, A

    Deller, A. T., Archibald, A. M., Brisken, W. F., et al. 2012, ApJL, 756, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/L25

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/l25 2012

  40. [40]

    T., Goss, W

    Deller, A. T., Goss, W. M., Brisken, W. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab11c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab11c7 2019

  41. [41]

    S., Cordes, J

    Deneva, J. S., Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2009, ApJL, 702, L177, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/L177

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/2/l177 2009

  42. [42]

    C., et al

    Dexter, J., Deller, A., Bower, G. C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1777

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1777 2017

  43. [43]

    T., Freire, P

    Ding, H., Deller, A. T., Freire, P. C. C., & Petrov, L. 2024a, A&A, 691, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451492

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451492

  44. [44]

    T., Swiggum, J

    Ding, H., Deller, A. T., Swiggum, J. K., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 970, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4883

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4883

  45. [45]

    T., Lower, M

    Ding, H., Deller, A. T., Lower, M. E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3736, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2531

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2531 2020

  46. [46]

    T., Stappers, B

    Ding, H., Deller, A. T., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4982, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3725

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3725 2023

  47. [47]

    E., & McCulloch, P

    Dodson, R., Legge, D., Reynolds, J. E., & McCulloch, P. M. 2003, ApJ, 596, 1137, doi: 10.1086/378089

    work page doi:10.1086/378089 2003

  48. [48]

    A., Kreckel, K., et al

    Drory, N., Blanc, G. A., Kreckel, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.01637, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.01637

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.01637 2024

  49. [49]

    P., Falcke, H., Karuppusamy, R., et al

    Eatough, R. P., Falcke, H., Karuppusamy, R., et al. 2013, Nature, 501, 391, doi: 10.1038/nature12499 EPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., Babak, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346841

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12499 2013

  50. [50]

    L., Spangler, S

    Fey, A. L., Spangler, S. R., & Cordes, J. M. 1991, ApJ, 372, 132, doi: 10.1086/169960

    work page doi:10.1086/169960 1991

  51. [51]

    L., Spangler, S

    Fey, A. L., Spangler, S. R., & Mutel, R. L. 1989, ApJ, 337, 730, doi: 10.1086/167144

    work page doi:10.1086/167144 1989

  52. [52]

    Finkbeiner, D. P. 2003, ApJS, 146, 407, doi: 10.1086/374411

    work page doi:10.1086/374411 2003

  53. [53]

    H., & Thorsett, S

    Fonseca, E., Stairs, I. H., & Thorsett, S. E. 2014, ApJ, 787, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/82

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/82 2014

  54. [54]

    A., Diamond, P

    Frail, D. A., Diamond, P. J., Cordes, J. M., & van Langevelde, H. J. 1994, ApJL, 427, L43, doi: 10.1086/187360

    work page doi:10.1086/187360 1994

  55. [55]

    A., & Weisberg, J

    Frail, D. A., & Weisberg, J. M. 1990, AJ, 100, 743, doi: 10.1086/115556

    work page doi:10.1086/115556 1990

  56. [56]

    M., Madsen, G

    Gaensler, B. M., Madsen, G. J., Chatterjee, S., & Mao, S. A. 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 25, 184, doi: 10.1071/AS08004

    work page doi:10.1071/as08004 2008

  57. [57]

    A., Zucker, C., Sridharan, T

    Gao, B. A., Zucker, C., Sridharan, T. K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add7d8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add7d8 2025

  58. [58]

    Y ., Reich, P., Hou, L

    Gao, X. Y ., Reich, P., Hou, L. G., Reich, W., & Han, J. L. 2019, A&A, 623, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834092

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834092 2019

  59. [59]

    M., Lam, M

    Geiger, A., Cordes, J. M., Lam, M. T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08191, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08191 —. 2025, ApJ, 986, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add0b6

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.08191 2024

  60. [60]

    2016, A&A, 586, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526100 G´omez, G

    Ginsburg, A., Henkel, C., Ao, Y ., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526100 G´omez, G. C., Benjamin, R. A., & Cox, D. P. 2001, AJ, 122, 908, doi: 10.1086/321180

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526100 2016

  61. [61]

    A., Laffon, H., et al

    Guillemot, L., Smith, D. A., Laffon, H., et al. 2016, AAP, 587, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527847

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527847 2016

  62. [62]

    L., Wang, C., Wang, P

    Han, J. L., Wang, C., Wang, P. F., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 107, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107 2021

  63. [63]

    L., Zhou, D

    Han, J. L., Zhou, D. J., Wang, C., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 014001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ada3b7

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ada3b7 2025

  64. [64]

    S., & Harding, A

    Harding, D. S., & Harding, A. K. 1982, ApJ, 257, 603, doi: 10.1086/160016

    work page doi:10.1086/160016 1982

  65. [65]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4af

    He, Q., Shi, X., & Li, G. 2025, ApJ, 979, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada4af 2025

  66. [66]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 689, doi: 10.1086/305574

    Heiles, C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 689, doi: 10.1086/305574

    work page doi:10.1086/305574 1998

  67. [67]

    J., Pilkington, J

    Hewish, A., Bell, S. J., Pilkington, J. D. H., Scott, P. F., & Collins, R. A. 1968, Nature, 217, 709, doi: 10.1038/217709a0

    work page doi:10.1038/217709a0 1968

  68. [68]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac449a

    Heywood, I., Rammala, I., Camilo, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac449a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac449a 2022

  69. [69]

    G., & Han, J

    Hou, L. G., & Han, J. L. 2014, A&A, 569, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424039

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424039 2014

  70. [70]

    S., Betti, S., et al

    Hutschenreuter, S., Anderson, C. S., Betti, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140486

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140486 2022

  71. [71]

    Deller, A. T. 2018, ApJ, 864, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad084

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad084 2018

  72. [72]

    C., Han, J

    Jing, W. C., Han, J. L., Hong, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1782

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1782 2023

  73. [73]

    C., Han, J

    Jing, W. C., Han, J. L., Wang, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.14519, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.14519

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.14519 2025

  74. [74]

    R., et al

    Johnston, S., Kramer, M., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, L6, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00232.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00232.x 2006

  75. [75]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., & Kerp, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101823

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101823 2009

  76. [76]

    C., & Pen, U.-L

    Keating, L. C., & Pen, U.-L. 2020, MNRAS, 496, L106, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa095

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa095 2020

  77. [77]

    Kirsten, F., Bhat, N. D. R., Meyers, B. W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c05 2019

  78. [78]

    H., Manchester, R

    Kramer, M., Stairs, I. H., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2021, Physical Review X, 11, 041050, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041050

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.041050 2021

  79. [79]

    A., Joshi, B

    Krishnakumar, M. A., Joshi, B. C., & Manoharan, P. K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.19388, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.19388 33

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19388 2025

  80. [80]

    Manoharan, P. K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/1/23 2015

Showing first 80 references.